Intellectual Ammo Department
1. I don’t. Generally, people who refuse to accept reasonable (reason) or logical (logic) demonstration are not smart people. The key factor to intelligence is logic. Reason, of course, follows logic. If a person is incapable of logical thinking, it is a waste of your time to attempt to persuade them of anything out of their realm of objective comprehension.
2. This is a little existential for you, Tanny. You live your life by the choices you make. It is not hard to accept irrationality as a part of life. In fact, I think it is healthy to accept it. Otherwise, you would live your life in constant fear. If you make your choices from a rational, objective, accepting viewpoint there is nothing to fear.
3. You must know and believe that your life has meaning.
4. The use of the word ‘can’ makes me say yes, but I’m not sure I understand the question. The Constitution guarantees me rights, and those we elect to represent us in our government must provide those rights to me. Judges must provide justice to me. Is this what you mean?
5. Again, the use of the word ‘can’ makes me say yes. Beyond that, yes, of course there exists group rights. Americans as a group have many rights, etc.
Posted by Phoenix
05/22/2005 at 07:33 PM
1. You can’t. To convince someone, they have to be willing to consider the idea that they might be wrong. If they refuse to consider evidence, then there’s no convincing them.
2. I think Phoenix explained this one pretty well. Simply put, live your own life with the rational acceptance of others’ irrationality, and take that irrationality into account.
3. You must accept that the values of life and of freedom are intrinsic to each other. Life has but little value without freedom, and freedom is meaningless without life. Once you know and accept this, then you can consider rights.
4. I must disagree with Phoenix, and say “no.” Courts, the government, the law enforcement agencies - this exist not to provide rights to us, but to protect those rights from tyranny. Once they cease protecting those rights, they become their own antithesis.
For one person to claim a right to a service from another, that person claims a hierarchy of rights; that is, he claims the other as a servant of sorts. This undermines the rights of both individuals, by imposing an extraneous duty upon the “servant,” and by abdicating the responsibility of the “served” to the “servant.” Rights without responsibility lead to tyranny; responsibility without rights leads to slavery.
The exception is parenthood, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.5. No. There are individual rights, and then there is the individual rights of many, considered as an aggregate. However, the aggregate as a whole does not possess rights, per se; any rights belonging to the aggregate are really the rights of the individuals.
Saying that Americans as a group have many rights is a little off-base; rather, America respects the individual’s rights more than anywhere else, making Americans as a whole freer, seeming to possess more rights. But it’s not that there are more rights intrinsic to Americans than to anyone else; those rights are simply recognized, instead of ignored or trampled.#5 - JS is right. When doctors treat sick people and their major concern is the benefit of society, we cross the line. Then we treat humans like we do horses or hogs. Sounds exactly like Germany in 1936.
This of course violates a Doctor’s oath here in the United States. Doctors’ so-called “oaths” are different all around the world. Will your Doctor say in 2025, “Halt, dis human smoked until 2003. It is clearly in the medical records. Smoking violates the benefit of the state. State resources would be better spent on Social Security or fixing my “State Owned” car. No surgery for you, next.”
Posted by Z Woof
05/23/2005 at 06:32 AM
(1) Sounds like my family. I quit trying and just inform them that as a member of the VRWC, after we finish stealing all of Iraq’s oil and plunging drill bits through baby seals, I will be coming for them.
They tend to leave me alone after that (and I think may believe me; they that bad).
Posted by mt
05/23/2005 at 03:19 PM
4. “Can anyone have a right to any thing or service that someone else must provide?”
I’m going to change this just a bit to: “Does anyone have a right to any thing or any service that someone else must provide?”
Yes. The pulse of our nation runs on the service sector. When we pay for service, we have the right to expect it. Simple as that.
Posted by Phoenix
05/23/2005 at 04:19 PM
mt:
What is the VRWC? Also, is it a news bulletin today that I missed - that we are stealing Iraq’s oil? Damn. That is so shitty of us. Baby seals don’t live underground. I think it would probably be kinda hard to drill a fat baby seal in the water...nothin’ to hold him still.
Posted by Phoenix
05/23/2005 at 04:24 PM
Phoenix:
That is not a personal right; it is, instead, an economic right intrinsic to the transaction, not to the purchaser.
I do not possess any right to any service, unless I pay for that service, nor does anyone possess any right to service from me unless they also recompense me for the same. It is only upon payment, or agreement of payment, that I have any claim upon that service; therefore the right to service is seperate from the rights intrinsic to myself, and limited soley to whatever agreements, transactions, purchases, and/or sales I might conduct.JST,
Exactly.
Posted by Phoenix
05/23/2005 at 05:43 PM
My thanks to all who have contributed here thus far. Folks like you are what make this blog so special. We have a lot of good heads at work here, and it is an honor to be in your company and share your thoughts.
Phoenix:
I should have put the <sarcasm> tag up. My family are rabid liberals that think anything written on the DU is gospel. Rather then argue with them anymore I just go along with it. Kinda fun to watch them start foaming at the mouth.
OT, but I wish we would steal that damn oil. Went to fill up today and expect to see a loan officer by the pump
.
Posted by mt
05/23/2005 at 09:34 PM
